Huge Iranian energy plant explosion coincides with bid on Ahmadinejad's life!

[Plane]

<<Yes.>>

So you admit that American fears of Iraq are irrational. 

Yea , ... in the sense that American fear of any country militarily is irrational. To collect an equal military power against the US every other country of the planet would have to combine forces , leaving none out. But that is a very narrow sense , that the only fear we should ever have is loosing a war. Much smaller things than total national defeat are legitimate worries even fruitless and hopeless attacks from small organisations with no real hope of success can be quite harmfull even if they can't be fatal.


Perfect rationality would reveil that no small power can really profit from use of an atomic bomb , if we had confidence in the rationality of North Korea and Iran we would have no fear .

Since North Korea and Iran cultivate an irrational and cruel reputation , as if they gain advantage thereby is our fear of irrationality controlling atom bombs unjustified?

[Michael Tee]

<<Perfect rationality would reveil that no small power can really profit from use of an atomic bomb , if we had confidence in the rationality of North Korea and Iran we would have no fear .

<<Since North Korea and Iran cultivate an irrational and cruel reputation , as if they gain advantage thereby is our fear of irrationality controlling atom bombs unjustified?>>

Yeah, I'd say it's completely and obviously unjustified.  You have absolutely zero evidence of any kind of irrationality in either North Korea or Iran that would involve either of them unleashing a nuclear attack on the U.S., even less of the kind of irrationality that would lead them to handing over nuclear weaponry to third-party groups of fanatics, thereby mortgaging their own country's future to the whims of a bunch of crazies.  At the most, you can accuse them of unwise resource management and distribution, a far cry from the suicidal impulses leading them into a direct or indirect attack on the world's most powerful nuclear power. 

Particularly crazy is the application of your theories to Iran, a nation which has not attacked any of its neighbours for over 250 years.

[Plane]

<<Perfect rationality would reveil that no small power can really profit from use of an atomic bomb , if we had confidence in the rationality of North Korea and Iran we would have no fear .

<<Since North Korea and Iran cultivate an irrational and cruel reputation , as if they gain advantage thereby is our fear of irrationality controlling atom bombs unjustified?>>

Yeah, I'd say it's completely and obviously unjustified.  You have absolutely zero evidence of any kind of irrationality in either North Korea or Iran that would involve either of them unleashing a nuclear attack on the U.S., even less of the kind of irrationality that would lead them to handing over nuclear weaponry to third-party groups of fanatics, thereby mortgaging their own country's future to the whims of a bunch of crazies.  At the most, you can accuse them of unwise resource management and distribution, a far cry from the suicidal impulses leading them into a direct or indirect attack on the world's most powerful nuclear power. 

Particularly crazy is the application of your theories to Iran, a nation which has not attacked any of its neighbours for over 250 years.

So these theroys are a good fit on North Korea which has a history of trying to get away with small attacks ,kidnappings and bombings.(" We didn't do it!  ... and if you don't stop these agressive verbal accusations we will do it again!(you know we can)")
I feel progress has been made.

Iran of course is peacefull and hasn't attacked its neighbors directly in since many years ago. Iran prefers to give its arms to catspaws like Syria or Hezbolla in Lebanon so that the kills are second hand. I don't suppose Iranian a-bombs would be usefull to Hezbolla as much as simply another hundred thousand rockets to replace their recently used stocks. Iran might have to create another catspaw for A-bomb delivery.

But since it is really crazy for Iran to use an A-bomb , why is it rational for them to spend a big hunk of national resorces just to make a few ?

[Michael Tee]

<<Iran prefers to give its arms to catspaws like Syria or Hezbolla in Lebanon so that the kills are second hand. >>

Really?  And that's different from America's SOP how, exactly?

<<I don't suppose Iranian a-bombs would be usefull to Hezbolla as much as simply another hundred thousand rockets to replace their recently used stocks. Iran might have to create another catspaw for A-bomb delivery.>>

Crazy is still crazy.  Iran has already shown us how it exercises its discretion in the arming of so-called "terrorist" groups, firstly in NOT giving them WMD such as chemical or biological weapons, and secondly in not arming groups whose primary objective is to attack Americans on American soil.  What on earth would induce them to change that policy once they had nukes, when one act by a group of crazies totally beyond Iran's control would guarantee the total obliteration of their entire nation?

<<But since it is really crazy for Iran to use an A-bomb , why is it rational for them to spend a big hunk of national resorces just to make a few ?>>

It's a variation on the Cold War theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, the variation being that while Iran's destruction would be total in a nuclear exchange, America's need not be total for the deterrent to work.  The theory, as varied, is that America would never risk the loss of a few big coastal cities just for the pleasure of obliterating or trying to obliterate Iran in a nuclear first strike. 

History demonstrates that Americans are cowardly serial aggressors who have never once attacked a smaller country in possession of even a rudimentary nuclear capacity.  The best demonstrated deterrent to a cowardly aggressor is to arm oneself with nukes.  Which explains  how a piss-ant country like North Korea can tell the U.S.A. to go fuck itself.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would say that you have nailed it.
One bomb is all that seems to be necessary to keep North Korea safe from US meddling.

[Amianthus]

One bomb is all that seems to be necessary to keep North Korea safe from US meddling.

China has more than one bomb.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was referring to North Korea's bomb. I don't think that China's bomb is the major deterrent to the US messing with North Korea. North Korea probably has the same idea.

China would probably prefer not to share a border with a more prosperous united Korea as well.
But they managed OK with Hing Kong for decades.

[Amianthus]

I don't think that China's bomb is the major deterrent to the US messing with North Korea. North Korea probably has the same idea.

I don't think China would appreciate us messing around in their backyard.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The problem is that the CIA does not see NK as in China's front yard or back yard, either. They see as an opportunity to win one for the US or perhaps South Korea..

If NK thought that it was protected by a Chinese Nuclear umbrella,  it would not have thought it useful to build its own. But again, Kim Jong Il is rather paranoid.

[Plane]

It's a variation on the Cold War theory of Mutually Assured Destruction, the variation being that while Iran's destruction would be total in a nuclear exchange, America's need not be total for the deterrent to work.  The theory, as varied, is that America would never risk the loss of a few big coastal cities just for the pleasure of obliterating or trying to obliterate Iran in a nuclear first strike. 

History demonstrates that Americans are cowardly serial aggressors who have never once attacked a smaller country in possession of even a rudimentary nuclear capacity.  The best demonstrated deterrent to a cowardly aggressor is to arm oneself with nukes.  Which explains  how a piss-ant country like North Korea can tell the U.S.A. to go fuck itself.

So you hae abandoned the idea that fear of Iranian Nukes is irrational?

They are building them for a reason after all? 

[Amianthus]

The problem is that the CIA does not see NK as in China's front yard or back yard, either.

You have a source for this claim?

[Michael Tee]

<<So you hae abandoned the idea that fear of Iranian Nukes is irrational?>>

What's with the Scottish accent?  No, I have not abandoned the idea at all.  It IS irrational for Americans to fear an Iranian nuke, as long as Americans aren't planning to launch an attack on Iran.  If Americans don't aggress against Iran as they have against countless others,  they have nothing to fear from Iranian nukes, which are obviously (for reasons stated in my prior posts) defensive in nature.

<<They are building them for a reason after all?  >>

But I explained all this in a previous post.  The reason is the variation on the Cold War theory of MAD.